Single-storey dwelling at Land Rear Of 27 College Street, Bury St Edmunds

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought to vary the approved plans so they reflected the single-storey dwelling as built.

“Retrospective planning permission is sought under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the variation of condition 1 (approved plans) of DC/19/2232/VAR to reflect the dwelling as now built.”

“A set of amended plans was provided on 26 November 2024 as it was clear the plans originally submitted with the application were not correct and did not accurately reflect what has been built. A full reconsultation was undertaken on the amended plans. Following another site visit and further representations it became apparent that the plans were still not correct. A further set of amended plans were received on 01.04.2025 and a further full reconsultation was undertaken.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies behind 27 College Street within the settlement boundary and conservation area, near homes, listed buildings and a garage block.

“The application site is located to the rear of 27 College Street, Bury St Edmunds and lies within the defined settlement boundary and the Conservation Area. The site was previously occupied by a funeral parlour and included part of the garden of 26 College Street.”

“Further residential properties which front onto Church Walks lie to the north of the site whilst a garage block borders the application site’s southern boundary. The former fire station building (now a store for Greene King) lies to the east beyond two long narrow gardens of properties which front onto Church Walks.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and changes

Earlier permissions approved a single-storey dwelling and revised plans, but the dwelling was built differently, leading to this application.

“Planning permission was originally granted under DC/18/0925/FUL for a single storey dwelling at this site.”

“The dwelling has not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans (approved under DC/19/2232/VAR), resulting in the submission of a further variation application to regularise the development.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Conservation Officer and Highways Authority raised no objection, while the Town Council eventually recommended approval and residents objected to height, bulk and heritage effects.

“Town Council: 10.04.2025: ‘Based on information received and subject to any Conservation Area and Article 4 issues Bury St Edmunds Town Council recommends APPROVAL”

“Many objected to the original proposal - building is wholly inappropriate. • Building should be demolished and should never have been allowed in the first place. • Building is higher than the existing adjacent garages and higher than is indicated on the approved and submitted as built plans.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A resident objector spoke for neighbouring objectors, two ward members spoke against, and the agent spoke in support.

Members discussed the impacts

Members discussed the retrospective application, conservation advice, the building’s proximity and guttering, and possible overlooking from the lower eastern boundary wall.

“In response to a number of comments made in relation to the application being retrospective, the Service Manager Planning reminded Members that the retrospective nature of the application was not a material planning consideration and that all applications were determined on their own merits.”

“Councillor Jon London highlighted that as the eastern boundary wall had been reduced in height this enabled overlooking into [name withheld] garden. He asked if an additional condition could be included to require an alternative to the trellis, above the reconstructed 1.2m high brick and flint wall, on the eastern boundary in order to remove overlooking.”

Minutes

The committee voted

The motion to approve was proposed and seconded, then passed with 11 votes in favour and 5 against.

“Councillor Don Waldron proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendation and this was duly seconded by Councillor Phil Wittam.”

“Upon being put to the vote and with 11 voting for the motion and with 5 against, it was resolved that…”

Minutes

The permission was granted

Permission was granted subject to the listed conditions, including a new eastern boundary treatment to replace the existing trellis.

“Planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:”

“7 The dwelling(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until the optional requirement for water consumption (110 litres use per person per day) in part G of the Building Regulations has been complied with and evidence of compliance has been obtained.”

Minutes